“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”~ Ronald Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981

New School prayer

From the email underground… the following was written by a fifteen year old Arizona High School student:

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this once great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God’s name is prohibited by the state.

We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks..
They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from wrong,
We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

Security-cam still of Asa Coon, the 14-year-old who shot four people at his school

It’s scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Share this:

Related

6 Responses

Thanks for proving my point, Josh. All my points provide illustrations of your misconceptions. Now you have more.
1. I didn’t suggest that Jefferson was “trying to protect Christianity.” Your first point is a non sequitur.
2. No one, except, perhaps, your Muslims, thinks “that their religion should exert control over the government.” The fact that you think that is evidence of both your bigotry and dark fantasy life.
3. Believing that anything exists beyond matter takes no faith if you possess evidence, as many do. Firmly believing that it does not, in the total absence of evidence, is only possible by faith (I’m using your definition of “faith,” here, to mean “belief without evidence” which is contrary to the Biblical definition).
4.
a. You say, “Even if you remove 2 of them, the rest are punishable by death.” Really? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? You’re just guessing. Admit it.
b. You continue to anchor your thinking in your imagination. You say, “not believing the right thing (commandment 1) carries a penalty of death.” But there is NOTHING ABOUT “BELIEF” at all in the First Commandment. It says what it says, Josh, not what you imagine it to say.
c. “…care to explain why you think I misinterpreted Jesus about the old law?” Sure.
The first quote says nothing about the validity of the law, itself, but deals with the specific behavior of a specific group of individuals under it. The second (try reading the whole paragraph (v.17-20)) predicts the exact point at which the law expires and you completely missed it.

5. You ask, almost incoherently, “How is allowing school sanctioned prayer not a respect for this principle?” Assuming that what you meant to say was “How is demanding school-sanctioned prayer not disrespect for this principle?” the answer is that no Christian group is demanding or requesting that the schools sanction prayers, but, instead, to simply quit un-Constitutionally forbidding them. If you meant what you asked, it is another non-sequitur. Allowing a public institution to sanction a prayer is giving them authority contrary to the Constitution in contravention of religious freedom.
6. The diction of your sentence in #6 is so poor the meaning is unclear, but if you mean it as a personal testimonial unflattering to unnamed Christians in your experience, I would certainly give them the benefit of the doubt. You have not been able to properly interpret language or events in any of your previous assertions, why should your raging hate-filled dialogue with Christians be any different? Your discernment of “logic” is nothing if it isn’t questionable.
7. A tiny minority of the founding fathers were deists, though, as you point out, some of the more prominent ones. If you believe that the country was founded on the idea of hedonism (freedom entirely separate from morality), of free sex, chemical intoxication, idleness and the abrogation of the Judeo/Christian morality of property and sphere sovereignty, you are not reading American History, but working, once again, from your imagination.

First off, “under god” wasn’t added until 1954. Why the original, founding pledge wasn’t good enough for the theocrats is beyond me.

I’m all in favor of allowing prayer in school, as long as it isn’t taking up class time, although the time would better be spent teaching more science. After all, in no small part thanks to religious fanaticism, antiscience attitudes are rampant in this country and severely hindering scientific education and progress in this country relative to others.

If we are going to display and encourage the ten commandments, why not display their punishments, which in all cases, even not keeping the sabath and dishonoring your parents, is death. You could say that Jesus negated this with the “cast the first stone” bit, but then he contradicted himself by also stating in Matthew 5:17 that he has come to affirm the law, and that it is not to be altered.

But more fundamentally, why is it such a tragedy to respect that there are children, and adults, in this country and our public schools, that don’t believe what you do? Not everyone illogically believes in an intelligent, loving god that thinks people deserve to burn in hell forever for not believing, through no chosen fault of their own, in the correct unknowable idea.

The founding fathers were brilliant in recognizing how personal and important faith is to the individual. Our FIRST amendment in the bill of rights beautifully suggests that we should maintain a respect of that, and allow free exercise of religion, and also not tyrannically impose the beliefs of even the many, onto the few. Why take a backstep from such a brilliant, freedom inducing concept? Its precepts like these that have made our country the most free nation on earth. If you want a theocracy, look no further than Iran.

Every one of your assertions is based on a misconception, Josh.
1. The “original” pledge was not a “founding” pledge, but written by American Socialist, Francis Bellamy (1855 – 1931), and published in “The Youth’s Companion” on Sept. 8, 1892. As a chair of a National Education Association Committee, he began to institute it in public education, unilaterally, without any government action, at all. It included the “Bellamy salute,” an outstretched arm, virtually indistinguishable from the Nazi salute. It was picked up by various private organizations and altered several times. The words “my flag” were altered 31 years later, in 1923 to be “the flag of the United States.” And none of that took any government action until the courts ruled (incorrectly) in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a public school student that he could be forced (in essence by the NEA) to recite the pledge. That was later overturned; the pledge became part of the non-binding “Flag Code; and the “Nazi style” salute removed from that Code in 1942, and the words “under God” added in 1954 TO MAKE THE PLEDGE CONSISTENT WITH OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS: That men are endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights; that it is to secure those rights that government has just powers. Without that concept, we would, as do the cultures in most of the world, believe that “rights” are a social construct, subject to the whim of Government. It is only the assertion that there is a LAW higher than government that forms the foundation of INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
2. You use the term “theocrat” like a southern racist uses the term “nigger.” All it tells us is that you hate certain religious people. “Theocracy” is rule by God. There has only been one of those in history, the first nation of Israel, laid out according to a blueprint written by God, himself, and instituted without any central government at all and no taxes. It is the only state in world history more free than the United States. Islamic States are NOT Theocracies, but Oligarchies, ruled by small groups with dictatorial powers. They have absolutely nothing in common with Judaism, Christianity or the United States in any form. The only connection is that their “religion” postulates a “deity,” and, hence, becomes a common target of your bigotry.
3. You use the hate phrase “religious fanaticism” to refer to real religious belief, and the propaganda phrase, “antiscience attitudes” to denigrate and condemn anyone who does not accept materialism. Materialism, the idea that all that exists is matter, is not science, but a philosophical “faith” assumed and adopted without evidence. Much of “science education” today, has been instituted by the same method as Bellamy’s pledge, by educrats using their position to indoctrinate defenseless students in their custody according to their private beliefs in materialism.
4. But it is when you begin to preach to us what the Bible says that your ignorance is most salient. You claim that death was the punishment for all ten of the commandments. Disproving this tripe takes seconds. “Covetousness,” for instance, had no punishment at all. Stealing was never punishable by death. You’re making it up as you go along. Your dissertation on the position of Jesus vis-à-vis the Law reflects similar, deeply rooted theological ignorance and that is clearly rooted in your assumption that you’re reading fiction.
5. You ask, “…why is it such a tragedy to respect that there are children, and adults, in this country and our public schools, that don’t believe what you do?” thus asserting that people of faith do not respect that fact. This is your judgmental imagination, again, making false accusations, erecting a straw man of your own fabrication. Christians have a deep appreciation for that fact.
6. You say, “Not everyone illogically believes in an intelligent, loving god that thinks people deserve to burn in hell forever for not believing, through no chosen fault of their own, in the correct unknowable idea.” Neither does any Christian. You give yourself the latitude to ignore what you’re told, re-write the religion of others and attack it as if it were their belief. This is reprehensible, evil behavior. You’re just a liar.
7. You ask, “Why take a backstep” from the first amendment. But no one has suggested that. You’re making it up. We have religious freedom and freedom of speech in this country for precisely ONE reason: it was founded by Christians.
If you want your godless nation look no further than North Korea.
Mr. Vizanko, your mind is full of false assumptions, Dark fantasies and hateful prejudice.

Frankly, I think Josh Vizanko’s comments are good, succinct, and at the risk of being redundant, brief.

To briefly reiterate and comment paragraph by paragraph:

1) In the first paragraph, first sentence, Josh demonstrates his discovery of the date ‘1954’ in the context of the phrase ‘under God’. The second sentence’s subject and object, and definitions, are not discernible.

2) In the second paragraph, first sentence, first phrase, “I’m all in favor of allowing prayer in school, …” I would agree 100%. The rest of the paragraph is grammatically and logically undecipherable.

3) In the third paragraph, Josh asks a very prescient, rhetorical question, with which I wholeheartedly agree: “If we are going to display and encourage the ten commandments, why not display their punishments…?” Brilliant! Where have we been all this time.
The rest of the sentence and paragraph three, is illogical and contradictory, though being relatively irrelevant affords some relief and is not a detraction from Josh’s earlier insightful originality.

4) The fourth paragraph is logically and grammatically indecipherable. The use of foul language was no doubt a slip up. After all, how many times when really thinking hard, haven’t we needed to use tweezers to retrieve a piece of sharp pencil point from our chins! Common now!

5) Now! In the fifth paragraph Josh once again restores our faith in his insight with the resounding and most agreeable observation: “The founding fathers were brilliant in recognizing how personal and important faith is to the individual.”

I offer here in deference and defense to Josh’s obvious opine for truth, the following:

No doubt some will take note that the rest of the fifth paragraph begins to deteriorate following the first and what we now understand to be the parting wisdom. This is of course evident in the digression from the source, being as we originally understood, the Bill of Rights. There is no doubt that this was due to a change in source by one of those eager but over-zealous editors we have all come to know. The real first amendment is quite clear, and not at all suggestive, in it’s intent. There are so many versions, you know, out there these days, that one can never be too careful.

That this was the case is demonstrated by the last three sentences, of course, being again grammatically and logically undecipherable.

Completely wrong, and you gave no argument that suggests that such a statement is correct.

1. The words “creator with inalienable rights” were written by Thomas Jefferson, a pioneer in advancing the respect of differing religious beliefs. He wasn’t trying to protect Christianity, he was merely suggesting that we have inalienable rights.

2. I am not using the term theocrat as a bigoted hate word. Its merely identifying people in this country that think that their religion should exert control over the government.

3. Believing that anything exists except the material is what takes faith, not vice versa.

4. Even if you remove 2 of them, the rest are punishable by death. So maybe me insisting “in all cases” was wrong, but even not believing the right thing (commandment 1) carries a penalty of death. And care to explain why you think I misinterpreted Jesus about the old law?

5. How is allowing school sanctioned prayer not a respect for this principle?

6. I have spent thousands of hours debating with Christians, and many believe exactly what I posted as being “illogical.”

7. Many of the founding fathers were deists, especially the more prominent ones, and some even flat out rejected Christianity. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom for their own sake, not because Christianity suggested it.

Thanks for proving my point, Josh. All my points provide illustrations of your misconceptions. Now you have more.

1. I didn’t suggest that Jefferson was “trying to protect Christianity.” Your first point is a non sequitur.

2. No one, except, perhaps, your Muslims, thinks “that their religion should exert control over the government.” The fact that you think that is evidence of both your bigotry and dark fantasy life.

3. Believing that anything exists beyond matter takes no faith if you possess evidence, as many do. Firmly believing that it does not, in the total absence of evidence, is only possible by faith (I’m using your definition of “faith,” here, to mean “belief without evidence” which is contrary to the Biblical definition).

4.
a. You say, “Even if you remove 2 of them, the rest are punishable by death.” Really? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? You’re just guessing. Admit it.
b. You continue to anchor your thinking in your imagination. You say, “not believing the right thing (commandment 1) carries a penalty of death.” But there is NOTHING ABOUT “BELIEF” at all in the First Commandment. It says what it says, Josh, not what you imagine it to say.
c. “…care to explain why you think I misinterpreted Jesus about the old law?” Sure.
The first quote says nothing about the validity of the law, itself, but deals with the specific behavior of a specific group of individuals under it. The second (try reading the whole paragraph (v.17-20)) predicts the exact point at which the law expires and you completely missed it.

5. You ask, almost incoherently, “How is allowing school sanctioned prayer not a respect for this principle?” Assuming that what you meant to say was “How is demanding school-sanctioned prayer not disrespect for this principle?” the answer is that no Christian group is demanding or requesting that the schools sanction prayers, but, instead, to simply quit un-Constitutionally forbidding them. If you meant what you asked, it is another non-sequitur. Allowing a public institution to sanction a prayer is giving them authority contrary to the Constitution in contravention of religious freedom.

6. The diction of your sentence in #6 is so poor the meaning is unclear, but if you mean it as a personal testimonial unflattering to unnamed Christians in your experience, I would certainly give them the benefit of the doubt. You have not been able to properly interpret language or events in any of your previous assertions, why should your raging hate-filled dialogue with Christians be any different? Your discernment of “logic” is nothing if it isn’t questionable.

7. A tiny minority of the founding fathers were deists, though, as you point out, some of the more prominent ones. If you believe that the country was founded on the idea of hedonism (freedom entirely separate from morality), of free sex, chemical intoxication, idleness and the abrogation of the Judeo/Christian morality of property and sphere sovereignty, you are not reading American History, but working, once again, from your imagination.